Zimark publishes articles and other research outputs reporting basic scientific, scholarly, translational and clinical research across the physical and life sciences, engineering, medicine, social sciences and humanities. Zimark is a scholarly and professional content publication platform set up for the scientific, scholarly, and professional community; each article has at least one author who is a qualified researcher, scholar or professional actively working in their speciality and who has made a key contribution to the article. Articles must be original (not duplications). All research is suitable irrespective of the perceived level of interest or novelty; we welcome confirmatory and negative results, as well as null studies. Zimark publishes different type of research, including clinical trials, systematic reviews, software tools, method articles, and many others. Reviews and Opinion articles providing a balanced and comprehensive overview of the latest discoveries in a particular field, or presenting a personal perspective on recent developments, are also welcome. See the full list of article types we accept for more information. Articles are published using a fully transparent, author-driven model: the authors are solely responsible for the content of their article. Invited peer review takes place openly after publication, and the authors play a crucial role in ensuring that the article is peer-reviewed by independent experts in a timely manner. Articles that pass peer review are indexed in PubMed, Scopus and other bibliographic databases. Zimark is an Open Science platform: all articles are published open access; the publishing and peer review processes are fully transparent; and authors are asked to include detailed descriptions of methods and to provide full and easy access to the source data underlying the results in order to improve reproducibility. Zimark also publishes other research outputs, collectively called documents, such as policies, guidelines, and workflows- these vary in formats and often differ from traditional scholarly publications. They are always linked to a specific gateway or collection (see below) and are published as a service to the wider research community. Posters, slides and documents are not peer reviewed, and do not appear in bibliographic databases such as PubMed.

Article submissions to Zimark undergo a rapid initial check by the in-house editorial team before being published with the status ‘Awaiting Peer Review’. There is no Editor (or Editor-in-Chief) to make a decision on whether to accept or reject the article, or to oversee the peer-review process. Zimark has an Advisory Board comprising a large group of leading subject experts; they provide strategic input, advise occasionally on issues arising with specific articles, and some members of the board also act as invited reviewers. Our editorial team will ensure that the article is within scope and adheres to the ethical and editorial policies, including our data policies. The team will also check that the article is intelligible and written in good English so that it is suitable for peer review, and that its content can be fully assessed by invited peer reviewers and readers. If a submission fails the initial checks it will be returned to the authors to address the issues, and if they are not resolved satisfactorily the article will not be accepted. Zimark also provides editorial support during this stage to help you manuscript editing needs. This will make sure the layout, English, and grammar falls into the basic initial publishing requirements. Posters and slides are not initially checked by the editorial team and are published immediately on submission, although a DOI is not assigned until they have been checked for scope and correct metadata. Documents undergo a basic screen before publication to ensure that they meet the criteria defined by the collection advisers who invited them.

Peer review of articles (not posters, slides or documents) published in zimark takes place after publication; once the article is published, expert reviewers are formally invited to review. The peer review is administered on behalf of the authors by the zimark editorial team, and authors are asked not to contact the reviewers directly. The peer review process is entirely open and transparent: each peer review report, plus the approval status selected by the reviewer, is published with the reviewer's name and affiliation alongside the article. Peer review reports are published after a quick editorial check and the peer review status of the article is updated with every published report.

Authors are responsible for identifying suitable reviewers who are experts in the field and can provide unbiased reports on their article. Before publication, authors are asked to suggest at least 5 potential reviewers, who must meet our basic criteria for reviewers. Authors can suggest reviewers who they know are experts in their fields. In case the author cannot invite suitable reviewers, our editorial team will suggest suitable experts who have published on the topic presented in the article. The editorial team will continue to ask authors to suggest or invite more reviewers until at least two peer review reports have been published.

In case the authors decide to suggest their own reviewers, authors must apply the following criteria: Scientific expertise: reviewers must have demonstrated expertise in the key topics of the study presented and/or the methods used. They must have published at least three articles as a lead author in a relevant topic, with at least one article having been published in the last five years. Level of experience: reviewers must have reached a certain level of qualification (in life science, usually a PhD or MD is minimal requirement) and have a formal appointment at a recognised institution or organization. In other subject areas, experience leading world class team and participating in cutting edge technology development for world leadng instituion can also be a credible qualification. Independence: reviewers must not be working at the same institute as the authors, should not be close collaborators of the authors or in other ways personally, financially or professionally associated with them. Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest on the published report.

Reviewers are given guidelines specific to each article type. They are generally asked to assess whether the research is scientifically sound, that is: whether the work is discussed appropriately in the context of the current literature; whether suitable methods have been used; whether sufficient information and source data have been provided to allow others to repeat every step of the work; whether the conclusions are supported by the findings. For some article types, such as Case Reports or Opinion articles, reviewers are asked to comment on the facts and approaches used, not necessarily whether they agree with the author’s opinion. In addition to their written report, reviewers also select one of three statuses: Approved: No or only minor changes are required. For original research, this means that the experimental design, including controls and methods, is adequate; results are presented accurately and the conclusions are justified and supported by the data. Approved with Reservations: The reviewer believes the paper has academic merit, but has asked for a number of small changes to the article, or specific, sometimes more significant revisions. Not Approved: The article is of very poor quality and there are fundamental flaws in the article that seriously undermine the findings and conclusions. The approval status is shown on the article, together with the reviewer's name and affiliation, and the detailed report supporting the status they selected. If an author decides to revise the article to address the reviewers' comments, all reviewers are invited to provide additional reports on the new version; reviewers are especially encouraged to re-review if they had originally given an ‘Approved with Reservations’ or ‘Not Approved’ status, as they are asked to assess whether the work has been sufficiently improved to achieve a better approval status. Reviewers who have been invited to assess a specific article may find our at-a-glance reviewer guidelines helpful, including an explanation of the benefits of reviewing for zimark. We also offer tips for how to write a good peer review report.

We strongly encourage authors to address the reviewers' criticisms by publishing revised versions and/or by adding author comments to the peer review reports. All versions of an article are publicly available and can be independently cited, but the latest version will be displayed as the default on Zimark. A short summary of the revisions is displayed at the start of each new version. All articles are ‘living’, even after peer review is complete: authors can publish an updated version of their articles at any time if there have been small developments relevant to the findings.

The peer review status of an article is clearly indicated at all stages: Immediately on publication, and until the first peer review report is published, the article is labelled AWAITING PEER REVIEW - as part of the article title and in the Open Peer Review summary box on both the article HTML and PDF. As soon as a peer review report is published alongside the article, the current approval status is displayed. As additional reports are received, the approval status is updated. Once an article receives two ‘Approved’ statuses, or two ‘Approved with Reservations’ statuses and one ‘Approved’ status, it will be indexed in various bibliographic databases. Editorials do not undergo external peer review and are therefore labelled NOT PEER REVIEWED. A small number of articles may become labelled PEER REVIEW DISCONTINUED if the authors had serious difficulties in securing any reviewers and is not willing to accept review from reviewers suggested by editorial team; in those rare circumstances, the peer review is no longer ‘active’.

Zimark articles are usually published under a CC BY license, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and leaves the copyright of the article with the current copyright holder (usually the author or their institution). Additional waivers are used by some institutions, for example governmental employees, where appropriate. As the specific version of the CC BY license applied to articles may change due to periodic updates, the copyright information for each article is shown below the abstract. Most posters, slides and documents are also published under a CC BY license, but other CC licenses may apply, as indicated for each research output’s published page under the image. Data associated with Zimark articles (not posters, slides and documents unless specifically stated) are made available, where possible, under the terms of a Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication (CC0 license). This facilitates and encourages data re-use and helps prevent the problems of attribution stacking when combining multiple datasets each authored by multiple authors that use multiple different licenses. Peer review reports that are published with a given article are available under the CC BY license.

All articles will appear in Google Scholar. Once an article has passed peer review (i.e. it has received at least two ‘Approved’ statuses, or one ‘Approved’ and two ‘Approved with Reservations’ statuses from independent and invited peer reviewers) it will be indexed in PubMed, PubMed Central, MEDLINE, Europe PMC, Scopus, Chemical Abstract Service, British Library, CrossRef, DOAJ and Embase. If an article is indexed, all versions, along with the peer review reports, are deposited.

Articles in F1000Research can be updated and amended at any time post publication, but each version is independently citable with its own DOI (digital object identifier). The most recent version is displayed as the default. The citation can be found by clicking the Cite button on the article page. Every article is indexed by the CrossMark Identification Service™, which summarizes the history of an article and any linked publications. Clicking on the CrossMark logo in the HTML or PDF of the article provides up-to-date information on the latest article version, as well as new peer review reports and any associated articles (which will be linked [threaded] together). Standard citation approaches are insufficient for F1000Research articles because: The reviewer status of an article will change after publication An article may have multiple versions following revision or update by the authors After discussion with our Advisory Board, major indexing services and others, we have adapted the traditional system of citation to include an indication of the reviewer status and the version of an article. This citation includes two additional elements, placed in square brackets, immediately after the article title (to avoid them being accidentally removed on copying): Article version number, for example version 1 for the first version, and version 2 for the next version, and so on. Details of the peer review status, i.e. number of reviews that are ‘Approved’, ‘Approved with Reservations’, or ‘Not Approved’. The status will be ‘Awaiting peer review’ before the reviews are published. An article should be cited like this: Authors. Article title [version number; details of peer review status]. F1000Research Year, Volume: Publication number (doi)

Posters and slides published after July 2015 have a permanent DOI (digital object identifier). The full citation can be found by clicking the Cite button. Posters, slides and documents should be cited like this: Authors. Poster title. F1000Research Year, Volume: Publication number (poster) (doi) Authors. Slides title. F1000Research Year, Volume: Publication number (slides) (doi) Authors. Document title. F1000Research Year, Volume: Publication number (document) (doi)

Source datasets associated with F1000Research articles are deposited in repositories that meet certain criteria. Articles include a "Data Availability" section outlining where the source data can be found, including the permanent identifier the dataset(s) have been assigned by the repository and a reference with details of how to cite the dataset(s).

Peer review reports on F1000Research articles are published under a CC BY license. A DOI (digital object identifier) is assigned to every peer review report, so it can be cited independently from the article. The full citation can be found by clicking the Cite button next to each peer review report on the article page. A peer review report should be cited like this: Reviewer name(s). Peer Review Report For: Article title [version number; details of peer review status]. F1000Research Year, Volume: Publication number (review doi)

We encourage constructive debate on articles and other content published in Zimark. To submit a comment about the article in general, either click the link to ‘Add a comment’ in the side bar or go to the end of the article page and click ‘Comment’. To comment on a particular reviewer report, click the link to read the report in the table in the side bar and then click ‘Respond’. You will be prompted to login to/register an account before you can comment. Comments are automatically labelled with your role, be it author, reviewer or reader. Similarly, to comment on a poster, slide or document, go to the bottom of the page of the specific research output you want to comment on and click ‘Add your comment’. When you’re ready to submit your comment, please ensure you’ve accepted the Terms and Conditions and then click ‘post’.

Zimark author service is inplace to help you maximize the chance of the pulication and passing the peer review stage. The author service is optional: 1. Before acceptance to Zimark repository: i.To ensure your manuscript falls into the convention of academic publishing standard ii.Free of basic English language and formatting errors 2. After peer review commenting i.In case your research main content does not pass peer review and requires more indepth guidance and revision ii. To offer technical review and scientiic advice, helping you improve the quality of the content. i.e fixing common rejecting factors such as lack of novelty, discrepancies in methodologies and study design iii.Need improvement on the articulation of your arguments and logic flow AND MORE

You can choose your author service package when you submit your manuscript through our portel. The option will be available to you during the submission process. You can also decided if to receive external support after submitting your manuscropt or receiving peer review report.